Raiders to release QB Derek Carr (Page 73)

[ronjon1990]

10 hours ago, drfrey13 said:

The benching and how everything went down signaled to the league that we were going to move on.  If we did not bench him there was still a chance he is a Raider next year.  2024 probably not unless he earned the last two years on the contract.

I don't think there was much of a chance he would have been a Raider next year really. The biggest difference is that teams would have been under the impression that if they wanted him, they'd have to come with a trade offer. 

I believe the relationship was too broken even before the benching for there to be a future. And I think he would have been more amenable to a trade had we not shafted him the way we did. 

 

[drfrey13]

11 hours ago, Styrian Raider said:

What makes you think, that there would be interest in him, if we didn't bench him?
The NTC would still be there and also the 15th february deadline.
Also why should the new regime stick to a guy who they don't think he is the real deal?
IMO that would've ruined their reputation amongst the other players, because if you look back at the season there was a clear line that nobody was save regardless of draft status or whatsoever.

What happens if he becomes our best chance.  We lose out on the top 2 QBs and Rodgers does not come.  You have to be willing to go in either direction if you want to have leverage.  Going past the 2/15 deadline locks us in to trading or keeping him.  Carr loses the option of being cut.  So his options become retire, waive the clause, or play.  Other teams go through drama with their QBs and they still come back to play or they move apart with teams gaining draft capital.  Did a Raiders employee come out and say he will not be on the tam after 2/15 or was it just the press?  I seriously do not know.  If a Raiders person never said it then the option is still open.  If JMD said it and then retains him it looks bad.  If it was just the press then there is always false information that comes out.

[drfrey13]

1 hour ago, ronjon1990 said:

I don't think there was much of a chance he would have been a Raider next year really. The biggest difference is that teams would have been under the impression that if they wanted him, they'd have to come with a trade offer. 

I believe the relationship was too broken even before the benching for there to be a future. And I think he would have been more amenable to a trade had we not shafted him the way we did. 

 

I am leaving it open.  I can argue it going in any direction.  The more I think about it the more the options seem to widen.  Woke up this morning with the idea above this quote.  This could go in a few directions with the base case being he is cut.  It could also go from MD having a daddy moment and screwing Carr like Marcus Allen to the sides coming together and deciding to work together one more year.  The wait is killing me.

[ronjon1990]

2 minutes ago, drfrey13 said:

I am leaving it open.  I can argue it going in any direction.  The more I think about it the more the options seem to widen.  Woke up this morning with the idea above this quote.  This could go in a few directions with the base case being he is cut.  It could also go from MD having a daddy moment and screwing Carr like Marcus Allen to the sides coming together and deciding to work together one more year.  The wait is killing me.

It's not a hard disagree, I just think it would've been more likely if not for the benching. 

Guys are tentatively shopped annually. Hell, the Packers were listening to trades for Rodgers last year and he still played ball. 

If we don't bench Carr and tell teams after the season ends we're open to offers, and inform Carr he's just not in our plans going forward we likely wind up with a bidding war. If Carr still shoots it down or whatever, we go for one more year or we cut him. 

Benching him, imo, erased any hope of reconciliation or a mutual split. With time left, they punked him. And the next guy failed too, which tells anyone with two eyes it's not just a QB problem. 

Basically, the difference is "Hey, Derek, you're not in our plans going forward. We have the following trade offers. What do you think?" and "You're benched. Hey, League, who wants this benched QB? If nobody comes forward, he'll be on the scrap heap come Feb 15!". 

Easy to see why there would be a broken relationship, imo. 

[IdigtheRaiders!]

21 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

It's not a hard disagree, I just think it would've been more likely if not for the benching. 

Guys are tentatively shopped annually. Hell, the Packers were listening to trades for Rodgers last year and he still played ball. 

If we don't bench Carr and tell teams after the season ends we're open to offers, and inform Carr he's just not in our plans going forward we likely wind up with a bidding war. If Carr still shoots it down or whatever, we go for one more year or we cut him. 

Benching him, imo, erased any hope of reconciliation or a mutual split. With time left, they punked him. And the next guy failed too, which tells anyone with two eyes it's not just a QB problem. 

Basically, the difference is "Hey, Derek, you're not in our plans going forward. We have the following trade offers. What do you think?" and "You're benched. Hey, League, who wants this benched QB? If nobody comes forward, he'll be on the scrap heap come Feb 15!". 

Easy to see why there would be a broken relationship, imo. 

     Don’t disagree with any of that. What remains to be seen is if McZieg even really wanted to move on from Carr or if their hand was forced by Mark. Carr historically performs better in Year 2 of a new system than he does in Year 1. I’m assuming McZieg knew this, if they did their research. It’s not like other offensive players didn’t look lost out there at times either (Renfrow took more of a step back compared to last year than Carr did), which makes it surprising that Carr didn’t get a chance to do what he always does — play better in Year 2, hopefully with an improved O-Line. I agree that the actions the FO have taken since Week 15 in regards to Carr seem quite inept. I just don’t know if that’s because they are, in fact, utterly inept or if the guy who signs their paychecks gave them an or-else ultimatum — and I have a feeling more info about this whole process will come out after Carr/McDaniels/Ziegler retire from the league.

[NYRaider]

7 hours ago, SilverNBlackFan said:

Never been the biggest fan of Carr and dont like the way he and his circle have handled the situation, but can’t blame him for not waiving his NTC and forcing his release. 

 I said it right when we gave him that it was stupid. Carr was never the caliber of player to deserve a NTC. Thats on the FO not Carr. 

Should have went our separate ways a long time ago. This is why having a middling QB like Carr i feel long term  is ultimately worse than drafting a QB that busts at the top of the draft. 

I don’t think Carr would’ve accepted the deal with basically no GTD money after this season without the NTC. 

[Jerry]

12 hours ago, bucksavage1 said:

No team was interested in trading for Carr on that contract + his value now.

 

We held on to him too long which exposed his flaws. Carr will in Wentz/ Matt Ryan territory in 2 seasons. 

Whats funny is no Carr supporters are mentioning how they were wrong about him. I’m serving Crow up. 
 

They were people on this forum who rather took Carr instead of Deshaun Watson. Watson was as toxic situation and still got 200 million plus multiple picks in return from a team who said they were gonna trade him 

How were Carr supporters wrong about him?  I liked the guy and I knew he wasn't going to agree with a trade.  Even if I hated the guy I still would have been smart enough to see that he wasn't going to accept a trade after the way things went down.  I still think he's better than how he played this year.  I think McDaniels handicapped him by forcing him to stay in the pocket and throw to the reads that McDaniels chose before the play was even ran.  McDaniels is a control freak and I'm pretty sure he's going to destroy our team.  

Either way I don't really know what you're implying.  Please elaborate.  I'm a Raiders fan but I still wish DC the best.  I've been a fan since the year after we lost the superbowl and I'm thankful that during this entire time it was him at QB that took us to the playoffs twice in the past 20 years.  The other 15 garbage QBs couldn't even get us to a winning record.

4 hours ago, big_palooka said:

I don't buy this. What would 2 games agains 9ers and Chiefs do for his value? He would have continued to struggle and they'd still had to make a decision on paying him on a bad season. 

If anything, the Saints telling him to take a pay cut confirms in my mind where the league sees his value as. 

Aren't the Saints like 60M over the cap?  Could just be that they're flat broke and can't afford to pay him on his current contract so they were hoping he would take a pay cut.  I just disagree with the Saints being the bar that sets the entire leagues opinion on what Derek Carr is worth.  

4 hours ago, big_palooka said:

 Thoughts on this situation:

1. The new regime clearly wanted to earn good will early by extending Carr and others.

2. Trading Carr last offseason would have been seen as a red flag given McDaniel's history with Cutler

3. The contract was made for a guy they intended to be their franchise QB

4. Derek Carr did not play well enough in 2023.

5. It's a business. Carr shouldn't agree to a pay cut if his agent thinks he can get more on the open market. 

6. His market will be soft because he's not as good as he might think he is

7. The Raiders are victims of recency bias

8. Stafford was an anomaly. Wentz (twice), Ryan and Wilson all left buyers remorse with teams.

9. Carr should have been traded years ago when the Raiders had resources (multiple FRPs to get a QB).

10. The Raiders never set up a contingency plan at QB and it finally came to pass. 

11. Carr will put up stats, but never be a reliable playoff caliber QB. 

12. It's on Ziegler/McDaniels to prove they were right moving forward. 

I still think McDaniels is about to run us into the ground and be fired in 2 years.  I'm typically pretty optimistic, but his record with the Broncos and overall history outside of NE is demoralizing.  It's hard to have faith after 20 years.  We're just missing too many pieces to be competitive next season.

[NYRaider]

5 minutes ago, Jerry said:

How were Carr supporters wrong about him?  I liked the guy and I knew he wasn't going to agree with a trade.  Even if I hated the guy I still would have been smart enough to see that he wasn't going to accept a trade after the way things went down.  I still think he's better than how he played this year.  I think McDaniels handicapped him by forcing him to stay in the pocket and throw to the reads that McDaniels chose before the play was even ran.  McDaniels is a control freak and I'm pretty sure he's going to destroy our team.  

Either way I don't really know what you're implying.  Please elaborate.  I'm a Raiders fan but I still wish DC the best.  I've been a fan since the year after we lost the superbowl and I'm thankful that during this entire time it was him at QB that took us to the playoffs twice in the past 20 years.  The other 15 garbage QBs couldn't even get us to a winning record.

Aren't the Saints like 60M over the cap?  Could just be that they're flat broke and can't afford to pay him on his current contract so they were hoping he would take a pay cut.  I just disagree with the Saints being the bar that sets the entire leagues opinion on what Derek Carr is worth.  

I still think McDaniels is about to run us into the ground and be fired in 2 years.  I'm typically pretty optimistic, but his record with the Broncos and overall history outside of NE is demoralizing.  It's hard to have faith after 20 years.  We're just missing too many pieces to be competitive next season.

It’s funny that you think Carr struggled because JMD asked him to stay in the pocket and play within the offensive structure. When Carr’s biggest weaknesses regardless of who our coach is have been his inability to extend plays, lack of mobility, and his lack of ability to make plays out of structure. 
 

The fact that the Saints were the only team that tried to trade for him is pretty telling on how he’s valued around the NFL. 

[ronjon1990]

1 hour ago, IdigtheRaiders! said:

     Don’t disagree with any of that. What remains to be seen is if McZieg even really wanted to move on from Carr or if their hand was forced by Mark. Carr historically performs better in Year 2 of a new system than he does in Year 1. I’m assuming McZieg knew this, if they did their research. It’s not like other offensive players didn’t look lost out there at times either (Renfrow took more of a step back compared to last year than Carr did), which makes it surprising that Carr didn’t get a chance to do what he always does — play better in Year 2, hopefully with an improved O-Line. I agree that the actions the FO have taken since Week 15 in regards to Carr seem quite inept. I just don’t know if that’s because they are, in fact, utterly inept or if the guy who signs their paychecks gave them an or-else ultimatum — and I have a feeling more info about this whole process will come out after Carr/McDaniels/Ziegler retire from the league.

Though highly critical of McDaniels, I'm not 100% sure he wanted to move on this year. He's a bad coach, imo, not a complete potato. He knows his back is against the wall now with a short term rental QB or a rookie he may not get to see year 2 or 3 from. 

Zeigler, I'm actually a bit less forgiving of towards this situation. I do believe Mark forced hands here, I just wish Zeigler showed more balls than Mayock and pushed right back. Mark wants to be too involved for his own good, I want our GM to be willing to say "Pipe down, Mark, the adults are working here.". I don't want another "Yes." man to the coach or the owner. 

I think highly of Mark Davis the person. But Mark the owner is an inept manchild. The disaster this whole debacle turned into indeed has his In-n-Out greased fingerprints all over it- we've seen similar in the past. But man, I gotta wonder how anyone is going to do a good job if they couldn't at least convey to Mark and convince him that, at the very least, benching a guy at that point is not going to help matters in the long run when it comes time to try and move him.

I find it hard to believe that Mark is incapable of understanding the logic of "If we entertain trade options without signaling to the league that our starting QB is going to be free to sign without trade comp, we'll get some offers whether they're high picks, mid picks, whatever. It's something more than nothing. If we bench him, we're not winning anything more this year, but the league will know the relationship has soured to the point of no return, and teams will just wait to negotiate with him as a FA and we will get nothing. Teams don't trade assets for FA's, and they're not looking to do us a solid for the sake of doing so. It's more important to maintain the appearance that we don't plan on moving him unless the price is right." 

So though I don't really believe it was McDaniels and Ziegler's plan, the inability to use their position to make Davis see the simple logic and reason of something > nothing makes me worry they're not up to the task of running the franchise forward. 

[big_palooka]

24 minutes ago, Jerry said:

I still think McDaniels is about to run us into the ground and be fired in 2 years.  I'm typically pretty optimistic, but his record with the Broncos and overall history outside of NE is demoralizing.  It's hard to have faith after 20 years.  We're just missing too many pieces to be competitive next season.

Run us into the ground? This franchise has been in the ground for 20 years. While you are probably right in that Davis will not have the patience to see it out. I like what they are preaching. But hitting on players in the draft is where it's either going to turn or end. 

[NYRaider]

1 minute ago, big_palooka said:

Run us into the ground? This franchise has been in the ground for 20 years. While you are probably right in that Davis will not have the patience to see it out. I like what they are preaching. But hitting on players in the draft is where it's either going to turn or end. 

Which is why the Rodgers trade is tricky. I definitely want us to do it but trading away our first and more again this off-season makes it difficult to assess DZ and it hurts our ability to build a young core. 

[ronjon1990]

21 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

It’s funny that you think Carr struggled because JMD asked him to stay in the pocket and play within the offensive structure. When Carr’s biggest weaknesses regardless of who our coach is have been his inability to extend plays, lack of mobility, and his lack of ability to make plays out of structure. 
 

The fact that the Saints were the only team that tried to trade for him is pretty telling on how he’s valued around the NFL. 

It's not rocket science. Why would a team willingly give us anything for someone they know they can sign in a few days? 

The Saints had to swing for a trade because they're in cap hell. Nobody else targeting him is interested in outbidding New Orleans and giving up resources when they know they don't need to due to the NTC. 

Not every team is as dumb as we are. 

[Jerry]

16 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

It’s funny that you think Carr struggled because JMD asked him to stay in the pocket and play within the offensive structure. When Carr’s biggest weaknesses regardless of who our coach is have been his inability to extend plays, lack of mobility, and his lack of ability to make plays out of structure. 
 

The fact that the Saints were the only team that tried to trade for him is pretty telling on how he’s valued around the NFL. 

Raiders' Josh McDaniels on Derek Carr difference from last season (clutchpoints.com)

Only link I can find where Josh McDaniels stated that he would prefer DC didn't run more.  

The Saints are the only team that the Raiders approved when it came to meeting with DC.  Doesn't mean other teams aren't interested in trading for DC.  What you wrote is just your assumption that they are the only team interested in him.  You really don't know anything.

Again, teams knew he wasn't going to waive his no trade clause.  Why even put in effort to meet with him and try to seek the approval of the Raiders when they (other NFL teams) all know he's about to be cut and then they can just bid for his services after without having to deal with the Raiders and discussing giving up draft capital/players?  If anything that information could have been leaked and teams probably would prefer to be private about what they believed he was worth.  Why get into a bidding war with picks/players/money, when you can just get into a bidding war over DC with just money?

[Jerry]

11 minutes ago, big_palooka said:

Run us into the ground? This franchise has been in the ground for 20 years. While you are probably right in that Davis will not have the patience to see it out. I like what they are preaching. But hitting on players in the draft is where it's either going to turn or end. 

Yeah I know.  I agree.  Just in the mud instead of dirt I guess. 

I personally believe McD and Z are going to take us to another end.

Edited February 13, 2023 by Jerry

[NYRaider]

1 minute ago, Jerry said:

Raiders' Josh McDaniels on Derek Carr difference from last season (clutchpoints.com)

Only link I can find where Josh McDaniels stated that he would prefer DC didn't run more.  

The Saints are the only team that the Raiders approved when it came to meeting with DC.  Doesn't mean other teams aren't interested in trading for DC.  What you wrote is just your assumption that they are the only team interested in him.  You really don't know anything.

Again, teams knew he wasn't going to waive his no trade clause.  Why even put in effort to meet with him and try to seek the approval of the Raiders when they (other NFL teams) all know he's about to be cut and then they can just bid for his services after without having to deal with the Raiders and discussing giving up draft capital/players?  If anything that information could have been leaked and teams probably would prefer to be private about what they believed he was worth.  Why get into a bidding war with picks/players/money, when you can just get into a bidding war over DC with just money?

DC has never been good at running the ball, extending plays, or creating outside of the offensive structure though. Those things have actually been probably his biggest flaws. 

According to Vinny the Saints were the only team that expressed interest in trading for him. 
 

And if you value Carr as a premium level starter you secure him now so you don’t risk missing on him and having no backup plan at QB? Lol